[MD] Some historical perspective

[MarshaV]

Mark,

Did you try to send me attachment through the MD list?  I don't think that is permitted.  Interpretations of the MoQ differ, and I know of no reason that I should accept yours.  Sorry.   

Marsha




-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of mark_maxwell at talktalk.net
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 4:01 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Some historical perspective


Greetings Mark,

>From a MoQ point-of-view, I do not think patterns represent a subject/self or an object.



Squonk: Hi Marsha,

The intellectual differentiating process we regard to be SOM includes subjects and objects, and ‘others’ which are neither. These ‘others’ are conveniently overlooked.

In the moq, the additional ’other’ patterns omitted from SOM are better accommodated, and those patterns which were previously regarded to be either subjects or objects are reclassified.

The reclassified patterns which were previously regarded to be either subjects or objects in SOM may still be regarded to be ‘representations’ in the moq because, for example, the socially learned term, ‘cat=
 2�� is not the cat. Therefore, one may regard the social learned term, ‘cat’ to represent any inferred biological cat.



Marsha prev: ‘…the only reality is now, now, now, now, now, etc…’



Squonk: We may utilise concepts and have a chat and/or speak of our experiences, but we can’t convey ‘now’ in differentiated terms. So, if you will forgive me, I shall not try, I shall simply and sincerely agree with you.



Marsha prev: ‘I see no reason to for the label 'naked ape',’



Squonk: I find Desmond Morris’ observations regarding Human behaviour to align well with the moq.



Marsha: ‘…nor do I give much serious attention t
 o the patterns science objectifies, reifies or fanaticizes.’



Squonk: I’m not suggesting you should. However, the moq provides a description of these patterns: they are intellectual patterns of values. It is SOM that objectifies them. The moq regards them to be an art form.



Marsha: And I find nothing illuminating in the term 'hard core'; if you would like to explain, please do.



Squonk: By ‘hard core’ I try to convey that which is left when a process of differentiation has been applied. That which is left are ipov, and the differentiating process is the moq hierarchy.



Marsha: You state that reification is an action, well of course it is, Quality is an process. That doesn't prevent=
 0subjects and objects from mistakenly be considered real, inherently existing, independent things-in-themselves. Even theoretical physicist consider their standard model to contain "real" particles.



Squonk: I am trying to draw your attention to that which is doing the reifying: SOM. It’s a tautology to state that SOM doesn’t prevent SOM reification, because SOM reification is a SOM activity.

It would seem the moq differentiates and reifies on its own terms, but we may still distinguish between moq reification and SOM reification.



Marsha: And as for 'Democracy' it is too often thought of as some kind of objective, independent state that can be achieved. "Let give those Iraqis democracy." Such foolishness... Intellectualizing 20is a process constructed from a SOM point-of-view.



Squonk: This does not alter the moq position, which seems to regard Democracy as an intellectual pattern of value. If SOM dominated people objectify Democracy then they do so as SOM-ists I should think.

I feel it is a mistake to equate ‘intellectualising’ as SOM because the moq seems to state this and all I am doing is agreeing with the moq.



Marsha: Certainly your explanations haven't presented any kind of evidence to the contrary.



Squonk: It is the moq which ‘provides the evidence’ and not me Marsha. You credit me with way too much their. My claim Is that Bo’s SOL has introduced ambiguity. And now you are introducing ambi
 guity by proxy.



Marsha prev: As far as I can remember The Naked Ape is the name of a book I read in the 70s. You wrote: "The nervous system, which is an intellectual description of biology, is the source of emotions. It’s evolutionary function is has been concerned with survival. These days, it has things like E = mc2 to respond to as well.", which a complex of ever-changing, interrelated and interconnected, inorganic, biological, social and intellectual, static patterns of value.

For the moment, we may have to agree that we have different realities and therefore different experiences of the MoQ. Maybe over time we will better understand each other.



Marsha 



Squonk: ‘The last few months’ i
 s a long time in metaphysics.